Are you asking this question bc a company has declined offering you coverage due to the diving board? If so, don't worry about it! The insurance company has the right to do this, just like you have to right to have a diving board. Insurance companies are required to file their underwriting guidelines with the state dept of insurance. They have to follow those guidelines to the letter. So if I'm the agent's cousin and I have a swimming pool with a diving board, the agent has to deny me coverage too. It has to be applied fairly to everyone.

Hope this helps.

• This is such a hard question when it comes to gun control. People that belong to gun/rifle clubs are generally respectful of their weapons and keep them well locked up at home. With many it's a hobby. Some people have a licensed weapon in certain areas of Canada and the U.S. for protection. I am not for guns in the home, but, I do know that by curbing gun control as far as gun clubs or for protection isn't the problem and it's the bad guys out there getting guns off the black market so our governments are being lazy, taking it out on those that enjoy collecting firearms or belong to a gun/rifle club instead of breaking-up the black market. There is no need for automatic weapons such as machine guns, etc. Controvery is that citizens have no need for automatic weapons and jury is still out on this law.

• Fully automatic weapons have been legal in the USA for many years. In 1934 Congress passed laws which made the tax and registration of automatic (machine guns) mandatory. Since that time, only two cases of crime with registered weapons has occurred, and one of those was an Ohioan police officer.

• This article from NBC News only includes Police Officers and it doesn't take into consideration of gang violence which is rising and the black market of automatic weapons and other sophisticated weapons. Lapse of assault weapons ban cited Local and federal law enforcement officials told NBC News that criminals were more likely to use high-powered semiautomatic pistols and handguns today. Some of those weapons, like the widely feared Intratec Tec-9, were banned until 2004, but they became legal when Congress refused to extend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, even though President Bush, an opponent of gun control, promised to sign an extension. Semiautomatic firearms - including the previously banned assault-style guns often misleadingly equated with "assault weapons," which remain illegal - boast higher-capacity magazines than standard revolvers, and their trigger mechanisms allow users to fire off more rounds in a shorter period of time. The study did not examine how many of the police officers killed this year were shot with weapons that were legalized three years ago, but the study and figures compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest a statistical correlation. The 39 officers killed in the first half of 2007 exceeds the 36 officers shot to death in all of 2004, the last year the ban was in effect. More broadly, firearm-related crime rose in 2005, the first year after the semiautomatic weapons became legal again, after having declined every year since the ban took effect in 1994. "We've always had lots of guns," said Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C., Police Chief Darrel Stephens, president of the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association. None of the department's officers were killed by gunfire last year, but six have been gunned down since Jan. 1. "What we've seen is people shifting from revolvers to automatic weapons," Stephens said. "Rather than six shots or five, they have 14 or 20."

• Yes, they should be available for purchase by anyone who meets the requirements currently in effect. You did know that since 1986 no ordinary civilian has been able to purchase a fully automatic weapon made after that year didn't you??

• Given that the current legal reasoning behind owning a firearm is personal protection (and possibly protection of personal property such as the home), the over-riding principles are proportionality and control. That is, the firearm should be one which the owner can reasonably expect to perform about the same as weapons which might be used against the owner, and that the weapon must be used in a controlled manner (i.e. a method where the owner can reasonably direct and limit the damage caused by such a weapon). Automatic weapons are available on the black market, and as such, it is reasonable to assume that a criminal might possess one. Thus, automatic weapons may pass the "proportionality" test, and it therefore would be logical for automatic weapons to be legal to own for a civilian. However, automatic weapons generally fail the "control" test - they are difficult to use, and even when used properly, are prone to cause indiscriminate damage. Weapons which cause uncontrolled damage are (and should be) illegal, as any potential benefit is offset by the high collateral damage possibility with even proper use. In general, automatic weapons offer few advantages for civilian use that are not obtainable via quality semi-automatic weapons, and the likely collateral damage they cause heavily outweighs the marginal benefit.